Lazy /lit/fags

>>8861189
wow what a nigger

>>8861198
Egon pls I know it's you.

But they are simplistic and juvenile.

>>8861189
>Why are you such lazy and narrow minded people?
If I knew that I wouldn't be.

>>8861206
But they're really not.

>>8861208
It's not hard just don't assume shit about an ideology until you've read a reasonable amount of the philosophy that it's grounded in.

>>8861212
Please oh wise one, tell us how socialism isn't juvenile and idiotic.

>>8861212
>It's not hard just don't assume shit about an ideology until you've read a reasonable amount of the philosophy that it's grounded in.
But my personal shortcomings compel me to do otherwise.

>>8861221
Well, what is socialism? Do you even know what it is?

>>8861222
At least you can admit it. But I think the remedy for that is virtue in general, which requires practice. Being aware of your thoughts etc.

>>8861223
nice "answer", idiot

>>8861240
It was a serious question. Answer it. You're currently doing exactly what was laid out in the OP.

>Inb4 "muh re-distribution of wealth".

>>8861240
The question is necessary for the groundwork of having a discussion of whether it works. I need to know whether you understand at least the very basics.

>>8861240
wow what a nigger

File: heh.jpg (27KB, 621x502px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 621x502px

>>8861250
How about we skip the discussion and you tell us what makes socialism so great. I'm not the guy who originally asked you, who probably would have played your game along, but I am not so easily fooled by your tricks. The day is short so tell me what makes socialism great, to the point. What's the essence of it, the picture of it you have in your mind that makes you think it's more than just a childish illusion

>>8861234
Way to avoid my question.

File: 1416763317125.png (26KB, 345x504px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 345x504px

>/lit/ is full of pollyps nowadays

Stirner is not pleased. Thanks moot.

>>8861257
>"Tell us what makes socialism so great"
Someone needs to re-read the OP. I never claimed it was "great", I said it wasn't as simplistic as most people think.

>"Your tricks"
You need to understand that to answer a big question you need to have a lot of small discussions to lay groundwork.

For example I can answer the question now as:

"There's 300 years and different branches of economics, ethics and dialectics, with many different bases for guiding principles, plus the fact that many simply flat out don't understand that it is worker/democratic ownership of the means of production rather than just "redistributing wealth".

But this doesn't really answer the question fully, does it? Because I have no idea what you understand about it, I can't address what you think its shortcomings are. Duh.

YOU are the one being childish, by assuming that I think socialism is "great", and by assuming that your question can be answered immediately when I don't even know what your issues with it are.

>>8861261
How does that avoid the question

>>8861257
Also way to call the Socratic method a "trick". Now we know what way you would have voted back in The Apology.

>>8861270
It's a trick, sicne you know no one visits 4chan to do actual work nor do we have the time to sit through an entire discussion, since we all have experienced how the debate partner just disappears when things get tough. Either summarize your utopic ideology or write a fat book. This thread will convert no one into taking MLP or socialism seriously.

You are a missionary complaining about heathen not converting themselves to your fantastic religion.

>>8861281
>This thread will convert no one into taking MLP or socialism seriously.

wtf i love fascism now

>>8861281
It's not my ideology you dogmatist. You also ignored my post explaining WHY it's a bad idea to just flat out answer the question.

>Your religion
>Your ideology

Nice projection, but it's evident that the only reason you seem so happy to force socialism upon your image of me is because of your unwavering unreasonable opposition to it.

(Because you're one of the people in the OP).

>>8861281
I'm sorry but, OP also mentioned libertarians and nihilists, you are reacting poorly to the possibility of someone taking Socialism seriously which, if anything, proves a part of the post right.

>>8861281
Now observe, as this poster's projections of other people disappearing when things are merely a reflection of his own immature behavior.

>>8861292
when things get hard*

File: 1480910168963.png (211KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1920x1080px

Holy shit do I hate people like you, OP.

You try to debate something, yet you don't even present an argument.

All you do is state an opinion playing it off as a fact but not backing it up with an argument. Then once someone tells you to back it up with a valid argument you say you that his statement is not an argument and that he should try to dispute your statement. At this point most people have already understood that you're mentally handicapped and stop bothering but some will make a statement trying to dispute your non-argumentative opinion. You then try to dispute the (often very poor) arguments on why your statement is wrong, claiming that your initial statement must be right.

You never try to debate that your initial statement is true, but rather try to argue that it's not wrong, never proofing anything and wasting everyone's time.

>>8861311

You should read the posts here, I clearly explain there's no point in doing that because I don't know what each individual's particular issues are with each ideology, so I can't tell them what the issues are. Maybe I could have given an example?

Hypocrite that you are you post one of those very men who are overly simplified horribly by even the people who advocate for what they think his ideas are.

Have you read Hegel? No? Then you don't understand Stirner.

>>8861189
Try seeing the kneejerk responses in an antinatalism thread.

>>8861332
Lol I know that feel...

>>8861315
Just another pretentious post stating 0 arguments. Shitcunts like you are so easy to spot with your pathetic methods.

Assumptions, nothing more than assumptions and rather pathetic projection without a single argument.

>>8861383
"You can't just call arguments you disagree with not arguments"

"that's where you're wrong kiddo"

>>8861389
What in your post was an argument?

>>8861398

>
You should read the posts here, I clearly explain there's no point in doing that because I don't know what each individual's particular issues are with each ideology, so I can't tell them what the issues are. Maybe I could have given an example?

You didn't read >>8861265, I'm guessing.

File: you're a wise guy.jpg (89KB, 540x562px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 540x562px

>>8861412
You're acting as if anybody values your opinion here; yet you're just another anon.

You even admit that you haven't presented an argument, you're just baiting someone to say that his ideology of x is not flawed or superior to others, just so you can argue that his ideology is wrong. Which is just pathetic.

It's incredibly easy to argue that something, especially an idea or ideology, is wrong or false, the dificulty comes in proving that it's right.

Again, you're doing nothing but trying to bait someone into a debate on why his ideology is wrong, not why yours is right. You just try to put yourself on a false intellectual high ground by pretending you're an intellectual, yet you can't even debate your own opinion and ideas.

There are thousands of your type on 4chan.

File: 411pgs4jPuL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (29KB, 350x539px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x539px

>>8861431
>You're acting as if anybody values your opinion here; yet you're just another anon.

No I'm not, and I know. Some attitude to learning you have.

>You even admit that you haven't presented an argument, you're just baiting someone to say that his ideology of x is not flawed or superior to others, just so you can argue that his ideology is wrong. Which is just pathetic.

Uh wrong I just said I made many arguments in this thread, but none specific in the OP because that's not possible because of reasons I laid out. It was a warning to not consider things overly simplistic before you read them.

>It's incredibly easy to argue that something, especially an idea or ideology, is wrong or false, the dificulty comes in proving that it's right.

That depends entirely on the idea. A political idea relies on coherent ethics, metaphysics and economics for example. I don't know about you (well I can guess you don't either) but I'm certainly not SURE about those 3 things, and would rather not assume I know otherwise.

Extremely ironic you post Socrates when you're defending the precise opposite of a Socratic position.

>Again, you're doing nothing but trying to bait someone into a debate on why his ideology is wrong, not why yours is right. You just try to put yourself on a false intellectual high ground by pretending you're an intellectual, yet you can't even debate your own opinion and ideas.

Again, failing to understand the Socratic method laid out in Plato which is purely negative and never proposes any ideas of its own. Good work genius.

>>8861435
First things first, yes you are acting as if anybody cares, otherwise you wouldn't have created this thread and you wouldn't use a trip like a cunt.

You try to look too much into the memes I just post because I find them funny.

Again, not a single argument made in your post. "You're wrong because I say so"

Incredible post and insight.

Philosophy students are just pathetic.

>>8861441

>Valuing my opinion
>Acting if people care if they are being laconic

These 2 are different. Conflating them is....laconic.

>Again, not a single argument made in your post. "You're wrong because I say so"

Refer to >>8861389

>Philosophy student

No, even BETTER, I'm a physics student, and you're a dunce.

>>8861189
Take the redpill, retarded cuck

Nihilism, socialism, and libertarianism is AGAINST the redpill

Read Schopenhauer's 'On Women' and Hitler's Mein Kampf if you want to know to truth.

I am inherently superior to women and nonwhites and anyone who disagrees is brainwashed, reddit, cuck, and immature

File: 4cf98fb36f243f7c2f1ee3d3c443318dcc9ce91acf8461bc8290e345299490ec.png (454KB, 504x501px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 504x501px

>>8861451
kek'd.

Hahaha what the fuck is this thread freaking nerds I swear

>>8861453
You can't reason with fanatics and ideologues

>>8861265
>How does that avoid the question

>This thing is awesome and if you disagree your a pseudo-intellectual plebeian!
>OK, why is thing good, smarty pants?
>Well, I won't tell you unless you tell me first to prove you already agree with me!

>>8861270
>Also way to call the Socratic method a "trick"
Well, yeah...
Also, there's not different branches of economic ethics and dialects, and not really are there different branches of economics, just different philosophies on the interpretation of economic events. Stick to physics rather than things you only have passing amateur knowledge of.

t. MBA

>>8861412
>There's no point in providing supporting arguments or facts to support my opinion
U wot, m8?

>>8861240
>>8861257
>>8861281
>>8861290
You know the manifesto is free online. You can read the whole thing in like 30 minutes and you'll look like less of a cringey tool when you spend an entire thread sidestepping

>"Quotation"
How long have you posted on 4chan?

>>8861189
How is Nihilism not totally simplistic?

>>8861189

>hello I'm /lit/. every discussion on authors and philosophers who don't share a worldview that isn't mine I refer to /pol/ and its deplorable illiterates. I cannot fathom there cannot be a divorce between the person and his political background, except for my group
>so discussions on marxism are fine since we're talking truth here, don't trigger on me shitlord, btw pure ideology xD

>>8861804
>le triggered Nazi man

>Just noticed OP is a tripfag
It all makes sense now.

>>8861832

>everyone I don't like is /pol/
>/lit/'s emotional child guide to online discussions

>>8861843
Must be the Semites tbf

>>8861843
Ironic, isn't it, seeing as you are from /pol/, a community known for its reasoning and debate skills

>>8861332
Antinatalism is purely a meme though, no one unironically supports it.

>>8861189
What the fuck are you doing posting with your trip Rebel?

>>8861189

i am sympathetic to your case for socialists and nihilists, but when it comes to libertarians, the garden variety ones you encounter on 4chan usually have constructed their belief systems on misrepresentations of the political philosophy in question, not on actual reading and study of political philosophy. so to attack them with misrepresentations of libertarianism is actually to meet them where they are.

>>8863010
confirmed for not having read benatar

>>8861265
this post proved that you are full of shit. now get the fuck out

File: 1481995768669.jpg (27KB, 394x395px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 394x395px

>>8861262
>nowadays
Despite your memes, you fucktards gave me a respectable list of books to read (and a lot of just fucking awful books), but when i go to NYC to visit friends I can look at their bookshelf and say :I've read that" to everything. Sure we're all ignorant fucks. But I can name everything written by Kant, Hegel, Sartre, Camus, Plato and so it makes me seem educated.
>Thanks /lit/

>>8863010
I used to support it unironically, desu.

>>8863029
I'm a big believer in the "don't fight fire with fire" cliche.

>>8864731
What made you change your mind? Did you realise life was all puppies and rainbows all along?

OP you are cancer. What's the point coming here and acting like this and refusing to make a case for your opinion.

Oh wait I know, you've carefully crafted a way of feeling superior to other people while having to exert a minimum of effort.

It's not anyone's job to prove your point for you, if you come here with a claim it's your job to back it up. And when you can't it's other people's job to tell you you're retarded.

It's no one's fault but your own that you are unable to support your claims, please stop trying to shift blame.